4.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Košice.
5.  On 30 March 1999 the applicant filed a civil action with the Košice II District Court. She claimed that the defendant should be ordered, in accordance with his earlier written undertaking, to sell a flat to her.
6.  The applicant replied to the defendant on 23 July 1999 and 8 February 2000.
7.  In the course of the proceedings the applicant discovered that the defendant had transferred the ownership of the flat in issue to a different person in 1999. The transfer of ownership had been formally registered on 3 March 1999. On 24 February 2000 the applicant therefore requested that the new owner of the flat should join the proceedings as a defendant. She also expressed her wish to extend the action, claiming that the purchase contract of 1999 was void.
8.  Three hearings were adjourned because of the defendant’s absence.
9.  On 13 March 2001 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s request of 24 February 2000. The decision stated that the purchase contract had been concluded prior to the introduction of the applicant’s action of 30 March 1999, and that nothing had prevented the applicant from bringing separate proceedings on the question of its validity. The hearing was held in the defendant’s absence. The defendant submitted a medical opinion certifying that he had serious health problems and could not leave his flat.
10.  Three hearings were again adjourned due to the defendant’s failure to appear. Because of the defendant’s medical condition, a District Court official heard the defendant at his home on 15 August 2002.
11.  The judge dealing with the case was on sick leave between 4 September and 31 October 2002.
12.  On 17 December 2002 the case was adjourned at the request of the applicant’s lawyer.
13.  On 4 February 2003 the District Court delivered a judgment by which it dismissed the applicant’s action. The court noted that the defendant had transferred the ownership of the flat in question to a third party on 9 March 1999, that is prior to the introduction of the proceedings by the applicant. As he was not the owner of the flat, he could not be obliged to conclude a purchase contract as requested by the applicant. On 21 February 2003 the judgment was served on the applicant’s lawyer.
14.  The applicant appealed. She subsequently withdrew the appeal and, as a result, the Košice Regional Court discontinued the proceedings on 12 September 2003.
15.  On 19 March 2003 the Constitutional Court concluded that the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time had not been violated in the proceedings before the Košice II District Court. It held that the case was not complex and that the applicant’s conduct had not contributed to the length of the proceedings. It further held that the proceedings had been substantially protracted as a result of the defendant’s repeated failure to appear before the District Court. It established that the District Court had, in principle, taken appropriate action to ensure the defendant’s attendance. The Constitutional Court found a period of inactivity of approximately six months in 2001 imputable to the District Court. That period was not, however, capable of significantly interfering with the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time.